D&D 5E Ruling Question on Shapechanger & Hold Person

[jmartkdr2]

I'd quibble with the last bit by asking what's the observed-in-fiction difference between "no effect because the target's an aberration" and "no effect because the target made its save"?

In the first case, the spell fails to target; there’s no “lock.” In-universe, I’d describe it as the spell failing to complete: something went wrong or didn’t work. An arcana check (or whatever) could reveal what happened.

In the latter case the spell went off as intended, it just wasn’t strong enough (fast enough? I forget what kind of save) to actually trap them.

For another analogy: in the first case, the bear trap didn’t snap at all. In the latter, the trap closed but they pulled their leg out.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Situations like this are why I don't usually do DM rolls in the open.

Though it would make players wonder what's up if you rolled a 2 out un the open and then announce the spell has no effect. I sometimes think that's more fun than keeping the roll hidden.

I'm out at the other end of the spectrum from @Lanefan (who is commenting how they run their modded 1e game, if I'm not mistaken) and see no reason to obfuscate outcomes with hidden and/or "fake" rolls for any reason in 5e. The spell fails automatically - no roll - what do the PCs want to do now?

 

[aco175]

I'd quibble with the last bit by asking what's the observed-in-fiction difference between "no effect because the target's an aberration" and "no effect because the target made its save"?

In the first case, the spell fails to target; there’s no “lock.” In-universe, I’d describe it as the spell failing to complete: something went wrong or didn’t work. An arcana check (or whatever) could reveal what happened.

In the latter case the spell went off as intended, it just wasn’t strong enough (fast enough? I forget what kind of save) to actually trap them.

For another analogy: in the first case, the bear trap didn’t snap at all. In the latter, the trap closed but they pulled their leg out.

My intent for a check to determine what happened is part what @jmartkdr2 says here and part since I let the players roll the save for the bad guys. If the player rolled and thinks the 'humanoid' failed and then I just say that if makes the save, there is a conflict. I think an arcana check to allow a super-genius mage who casts spells for a living a chance to know what is going on fair. (This last sentence is not meant to sound snippy)

 

[Lanefan]

In the first case, the spell fails to target; there’s no “lock.” In-universe, I’d describe it as the spell failing to complete: something went wrong or didn’t work.

The spell has no visible effect, e.g. a ray or glow running from the caster to the target, right? Which means the only way the caster would know the spell didn't resolve properly is if the actual casting got messed up or interrupted somehow.

Same as when a demon or whatever has magic resistance that applies before any save: the caster has no way of knowing which effect blocked the spell from working, only that it didn't work.

In the latter case the spell went off as intended, it just wasn’t strong enough (fast enough? I forget what kind of save) to actually trap them.

I guess we see the fiction differently: I see this as the spell tries to affect the target but the target shrugs it off, with or without even knowing something was trying to affect it.

For another analogy: in the first case, the bear trap didn’t snap at all. In the latter, the trap closed but they pulled their leg out.

Which, when neither you nor the target can see or hear the bear trap, makes no appreciable difference.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm out at the other end of the spectrum from @Lanefan (who is commenting how they run their modded 1e game, if I'm not mistaken) and see no reason to obfuscate outcomes with hidden and/or "fake" rolls for any reason in 5e. The spell fails automatically - no roll - what do the PCs want to do now?

The reason to obfuscate outcomes when those outcomes are not clear to the characters, whether in 5e or any other edition, should be (and is) blatantly obvious: to prevent players gaining information their characters wouldn't have.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

“The slaad can use its action to polymorph into a small or medium humanoid.”

I’m reading that as “it turns into a humanoid.” If it becomes a humanoid, its type would change. If it doesn’t become a humanoid, it doesn’t turn into a humanoid.

That is not correct. 5e has no general polymorph rules to the effect "if a creature becomes a creature of a different type, it's creature type statistic changes to match the target creature". Any rules with regard to statistics are dictated by the spell or effect used.

But even if it did have a general rule, 5e does have a rule: "specific beats general". And with the slaad's ability, it has a specific rule: "the slaad's statistics do not change".

5e rules have lots of contradictions and anomalies, but in this case the rules are completely clear: the slaad's type does not change, so it does not become subject to charm person.

 

[wedgeski]

By RAW I would rule that the spell worked. However, having the spell fail, perhaps coupled with some judicious eyebrow waggling or side-eye from the DM, would be one of those potentially cool player discovery moments that we should always look for as DM's. So I voted 'Other'.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The reason to obfuscate outcomes when those outcomes are not clear to the characters, whether in 5e or any other edition, should be (and is) blatantly obvious: to prevent players gaining information their characters wouldn't have.

In my game, I had a situation where a charm-immune enemy faked being charmed in order to fool the PCs. But I might rule either way, depending on the situation. I agree with you that what is important is what the characters perceive.

I tend to role dice at random anyway, so the players don't necessarily know what I'm rolling for.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Note that a death slaad in human form also retains it's AC 18 natural armor. you could also deduce it's true nature by noting that your sword bounces of it's skin.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The reason to obfuscate outcomes when those outcomes are not clear to the characters, whether in 5e or any other edition, should be (and is) blatantly obvious: to prevent players gaining information their characters wouldn't have.

"Blatantly obvious" for your playstyle to work, sure. Just as it is "blatantly obvious" that it causes the desired playstyle at our table to fail.

In the case of the 5e adjudication I described for our table, the players and characters have exactly the same information: the spell didn't work b/c the target is not paralyzed. Why this is happening is still unknown and perhaps an interesting challenge for the players and the PCs. We see no reason to hide this behind another layer - one of hidden and/or "fake" rolls for the sake of attempting to separate player and character knowledge which, for our table, is a futile effort that just slows down game play. It should also be noted that it is not without a dash of irony that hidden and/or "fake" rolls can serve to promote the very metagaming that they are meant to prevent. In any case, it's not my role as DM to tell the players what their PCs are thinking nor to police their justification for their PCs' thoughts. Importantly, what the PCs think could be wrong but that's what game play is for: to discover what is truly going on in the fiction via the actions of the PCs. And... we're probably veering into "another thread" territory here.